| Summary: | This article reviews contextualist methods in intellectual history, and discusses some of the specific challenges involved in their application to the study of international relations, and hence international intellectual history. While the broad thrust of these developments has been highly positive, the article argues that a distinction between classic and lesser works is a crucial part of the apparatus of the contextualist approach, which poses a problem in IR, where the idea of an established canon of great works has historically been less well developed than in the study of Political Theory or Law. As a result, the move towards contextualist methods of interpretation can force authors to restrict their focus onto a newly-conceived, and somewhat narrow, canon, with a stronly political and legal flavour. The eclectic range of earlier, albeit less methodologically-sophisticated, histories offer considerable resources for defining the scope of new empirical enquiries in international intellectual history, and the article concentrates on early modern journalism as an example of this opportunity.
|
|---|